Description
The a-s-s-e-s-s-m-e-n-t willbe 2500 words long.Please see the questions shown in the screenshot. I will send you all the info after being hired, eg PPTs, student access etc. Please send a draft in 12hrs -1 day time, day 2, and day 3 as well. + Will need to draft some questions to ask the teacher and revise base on feedback (Send bk ard in 1 day max)
Unformatted Attachment Preview
1
Interview Transcript
TRANSCRIPT 2: JA/858/2/21
Company: Engineering Solutions (ES).
Interviewer – Jasper (a Curtin student)
Interviewee – Mr Gregory Bly.
Mr Bly: “Hi, my name is Greg, and I work at Engineering Solutions (ES) employing about
two and a half thousand people. We provide a professional service targeting the engineering
sector which offers skilled engineering solutions to help manage resources such as water,
environment and geophysical (ground) requirements. My role was as an operational
manager across one part of the business in the UK.
Jasper: “Perfect, thank you so if you could tell me in as much detail as possible, about the
situation that occurred in your firm a few years ago that you had to manage and change.
Greg Bly: “So there’s a bit of history here. We had a specialist ‘environmental-focus’ team
which was providing support to our engineering projects. This included helping the projects
get planning permission, doing all the environmental surveys, and providing environmental
consultancy of various sorts. But, over time, that team grew and merged with a number of
other teams – and all who had other focus areas. So, there was a ‘ports and marine design’
team, a team working in the ‘clean water’ supply sector, and ‘dirty water’ treatment sector,
and another team who managed tunnelling and ground engineering. So it was a really broad
range of subject areas and employed about 700- 800 people. However, as the different
teams grew in size, the overall structure of the firm became cumbersome. It was hard for
them to reflect efficiencies. The Firm structure was very vertical structure – so it quite hard to
get consistency across the teams; plus there as no easy communication system between
them all. We knew we were not operating efficiently and we knew we had to focus on cost
saving. Our product was good – our systems were not. The rather messy ‘growth’ of the
super-team meant we lacked structure, duplicated some costs and still operated almost as
‘silos’ within the firm. This was starting to impact on our clients. So the real drivers for the
change were – an internal need for good consistent communication processes and an
external drive in terms of remaining competitive in the marketplace.
Jasper: “Sure, would you say it was more the internal situation that needed to be fixed or
was it pressure from the competition that really resulted in the change. Could you go into
detail a little bit”.
Greg Bly: “Yeah so the key driver was the internal issues around workplace efficiency and
effective communication. Workplace safety also became an issue. Together they impacted
costs – we are always looking to reduce overhead costs. The business was not struggling –
just not being managed smartly. So yeah, the thinking was that we had a very vertical
structure with each of those teams that I mentioned – but we decided we needed to level this
out and create a sort of matrix that allowed for systems to interact and communicate. Also
we found that when vertical structures don’t – or can’t- talk to each other easily, it can
become stressful for people trying to plan and coordinate projects, pressures increase,
deadlines contract.
2
Jasper: “So, what exactly was your role in this? What decisions did you have to make?
How did you manage that”?
Greg Bly: “At first, with the vertical team structures, I just had to work across different
disciplines trying to create efficiency in terms of project delivery and overall business
management. I found that a vertical structure wasn’t the main problem, but the
communication processes – or lack of – were a big problem and impacted all other
efficiencies. There was just no simple, easy way of ‘talking’ to the different teams without
constantly calling for meetings. It was slow and inefficient and frustrating for the managers
and employees and had to be followed up all of the time by people like myself.
Jasper: “How long did it take you to make those changes? I mean you were saying there
were about two and a half thousand people so quite a big the team. Where did you start?”
Greg Bly: “Yeah so the team had grown. It started out with about 7 – 800 employees and
grew to about 2500 in number. Things became increasingly hard to manage, and problems
were popping up where there shouldn’t have been a problem. It kept coming back to the
poor – or lack – of consistent communication. So … it took about six months to implement
the change, and this includes from the early stages of thinking and planning about what we
needed to do. We had to decide what the problems were first, how best to approach them
while knowing it would mean a complete Firm restructure. We needed a timeline to guide us
and we needed professional help to set up the necessary structures. We also needed to
update and change our IT systems so they all interacted smoothly as well.
Jasper: “So, what sort of guidance helped you to start this whole programme of change?”
Or did you just …wing it?”
Greg Bly: “ Management actually agreed quite early on about the structure we needed. It
had to flatten out. We had to stop duplicating roles. Then we started looking at how any
changes would impact individuals. We had to figure out how to take existing roles and
transition them potentially into different roles. Sometimes that creates new opportunities for
individuals, so there was an element of thinking that we probably needed to advertise some
of these new roles to be fair to people and give them an opportunity to go for them. This also
meant there was the potential difficulty of asking people in a current position to reapply for
their jobs. So we decided to trim the vertical nature of the team structures and present them
as a system, a matrix which clearly showed interdependencies. This, we thought, would
allow us to create clear communication structures – no one could argue with that! However,
the implementation and dealing with the individuals took time. We had to sit down with some
people on a one-to-one basis and talk them through why we were making the changes and
the opportunities – such as growth – that might come as a result.”
Jasper: “OK – so a big job. Now, some of the questions I have to ask you are a bit repetitive,
but one is ‘Why was it necessary to deal with the change situation?’ I know you said it was
about efficiencies, but was it feedback from individual employees; or grizzles from clients
that made it essential to deal with the problems? Or was it just a proactive move from
management who could see that things had to change?. Who brought up the idea of
change?
Greg Bly: Yeah … I think it was a combination of things … you know, people making
comments, some unsatisfactory customer comments, confusion where there should have
been none and so on. Also, we realised that the different sections were duplicating roles
which was inefficient and a cost we didn’t need. For example we only needed one good
Book-keeping section to deal with the whole Firm – not three different ’section’ bookkeepers. So, I guess a general sense of the wheels not turning smoothly made management
3
react. We started thinking – OK how could we improve things – become more efficient? How
do we create simple straightforward systems that talk to each other? We began just by
meeting and talking first and making a list of what we thought were problems and what we
thought might be solutions”.
Jasper: “Another question is how did the employees react? If there were 2500 impacted by
the change, there must have had some challenges for you? How did they react to the
proposed changes? How did management inform them? Was it a positive or negative
reaction?
Greg Bly: “Yeah so as you said there was a mix of reactions. We tried to make sure that
people were aware of proposed changes. We tried to sell the need for better efficiencies and
better communication systems. Some people fully understood the why and signed up to the
change. but you always get people that are scared I guess by change and don’t feel
comfortable; they just don’t like change .. and they needed time to talk through what and why
we were doing it. They were nervous about the impact on them.
For a lot of people we knew there would be very little impact, but we also knew others would
be directly affected – potentially that their current roles would no longer be required. So, yeah
we had conversations with individuals about you know … the fact that just because their job
was changing it wasn’t entirely a negative thing for them. It opens up different opportunities.
So, you have to talk them through that and explain how this is supporting business growth
and how that actually helps provide new opportunities and certainty of jobs in different areas.
People don’t always understand that to move upward in your career, you have to sort of zig
zag around, gaining experience, new challenges and promotions. So that was sort of the
conversation that happened with people about how it is an opportunity to do something
different, to change the way they work and to grow as individuals, as well as assist the
business to grow”.
Jasper: “Ok – so what were the outcomes from the change? Who or what actually changed?
Was it a positive change overall? Were the problems that instigated the change fixed?
Were efficiencies increased and costs lowered?”
Greg Bly: “Yeah I definitely think so …I mean on a very crude measure there are less
people doing management roles – but more efficiently than before. But I think the key thing is
that the business continues to grow – and quite effectively. One of the reasons that that we
wanted to make the change was to create new opportunities by working our skill-sets across
the different technical areas – and come up with new solutions for clients. So, I think that
that’s been achieved. For example, now the water section works more closely and more
constructively with both the geotechnical and environment sections. Across the whole Firm
there is more synergy, more communication and a collegiality that wasn’t apparent before.
People know what everyone’s doing and where they are up to. So, I think that’s been really
effective. Also, with the management meetings, we now have better visibility, a more
integrated view across the whole firm which helps make more efficient management
processes. So, there’s been a whole range of benefits from that
Jasper: “And that comes with the changes in the overall structure? People have more idea
of what other parts are doing …not just focusing on their own … and they can see the whole
picture. Is that what you’re trying to say?
Greg Bly: “Yeah exactly that, you can see that the whole picture and the approach is the
same across each of the different disciplines so it’s easier to get a grasp on a project
because the approach is consistent and communication systems work.”
4
Jasper: “Great, finally, obviously you were part of the big changes that took place, from a
management perspective do you think that it was a successful change and beneficial for the
company in the long run?”
Greg Bly: “Yeah definitely. Just in terms of overheads, our costs have reduced. But, our
business is a professional services business, so our income is directly related to working for
our clients. If our internal systems are more efficient, it benefits our people, the business and
the clients. Our teams are more functional now – and an added bonus is that it’s actually
bought the management team together. We are more effective and just better at synergising
things, and with a healthy collegial approach. So, it’s been a positive outcome all around. I
don’t really think there’s been any negative sides other than I said there were some
individuals who had changes to their roles and that needed to be managed quite sensitively
to make sure people didn’t feel that they were being pushed out or demoted or left behind”.
Jasper:“ Great – OK. Were there any people that had to be let go because of the change or
did everyone keep their jobs at the end of the day?”
Greg Bly: “We were lucky there, as a result of our increased efficiencies, we have been
growing, so no-one has lost their job, although some had to change their roles – or / and
redefine them a bit. So no, it wasn’t about laying people off at all.
Jasper: “Awesome – Ok, so the last part of my report looks at recommendations. From your
experience here, is there something you would do differently next time? Were there any kind
of drawbacks, or negative effects? I mean it sounds like you’re pretty happy with what
happened, but in retrospect, what would you have liked to see done differently?”
Greg Bly: “Hmm, a few things. First, the balance with any firm, but especially the bigger
ones is how much do you drive from the top and how much do you involve the staff in the
change process? I think it’s that balance between you just doing what needs to be done,
and knowing when and where and how to consult with your employees.
In reflection, I think management should maybe create more opportunities to consult across
the team. I’m not sure it would have potentially changed the outcome in terms of the
structure we ended up with, but I think … so much is about how you handle people, how to
do it in the best way. So … yeah maybe we could have involved people a bit more in helping
to define the processes and helping them to understand what we needed to see. That’s the
only thing I can really think of.
Jasper: “Yeah sure I guess it’ll be different for different people so we can’t always have the
best procedure”.
Greg Bly: “Yeah – and you’re always juggling the fact that there’s always a lot going on in a
business all the time. It’s easy to forget that people get overloaded with information and
deadlines, and if you impact their work and deadlines with stuff that’s not a part of their core
day-to-day business, they’ll not give it a lot of attention. I suspect that you’d probably find
only 20% of people would want to engage in the process anyway. So, yes, it’s a balance and
there’s no one right way of doing it. I think we just have to try and choose a way that this is
inclusive as possible of those who want to be engaged in the process …. to keep the
communication lines open and let people see early successes and progress so they can
tolerate a bit of pain if they need to.
Jasper: Thanks very much Greg – I have learnt so much from this conversation …thankyou
for your time.
1
Tips and hints to assist the writing of a FORMAL REPORT
As with any written piece, the basic sections of INTRODUCTION; BODY OF DISCUSSION and
CONCLUSION remain the most important aspects of a written work.
o REPORTS are an objective piece of writing that do just that – they report on something that has
been investigated. YOU do not have an opinion … there is no “I” or “we” in a Report until the
RECOMMENDATIONS section where suggestions can be made. (still best to keep 1st person out)
o A report requires a level of analytical thinking.
o Reports may use graphics / photos/ graphs/ tables – if used they must be clearly and accurately
numbered, titled and referenced. No Need to put in Appendix – this is for larger/bulkier
material.
o There are many different formats. The following is required from you!!
Some good general rules for all writing to keep in mind:
“your reader knows nothing – so tell them”. Explain clearly – ( who, what, when, where,
why and how. This can all be in one sentence if you wish)
RULE: If you make a statement always provide supporting evidence,
Always avoid generalisations (see comment in ‘Body of Work’ below).
Keep yourself out of the discussion –avoid first person (ie “I”).
We are an Australian University. Set your spell check to default to ‘English – Australian’.
For Reports, you may use Dot –Points, but use them sparingly. They are not to be used to
avoid good, sound discussion.
You may use Sub-Headings (make sure your Contents list reflects these)
Number your pages … the top right hand corner, or bottom right hand corner is best.
Footers – only for Report or Author Title – not for references. Very brief and Right align.
Recommended format for the Assignment.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Title Page; Author; Date and Word count.
Executive summary
Content list.
Introduction
Discussion: (Body of the work)
5.1 Change Drivers & Change intervention
5.2 Change Perspectives
5.3 Interviewee’s underlying change assumptions
5.4 Planned or Emergent change
5.5 Effectiveness of the change intervention
6. Conclusions
7. Recommendations
8. References (and appendices: interview transcript, etc.)
2
1: TITLE PAGE – and Author. Include the date of ‘publication’ (when did you write it). A
word count should be included here.
2: Executive Summary. The purpose is to provide at a glance the purpose of and outcomes
of the Report (similar to an ABSTRACT for a journal article). The Exec summary should be concise,
highlighting key content and main outcomes. Do this after your written work is completed, it is
written in PAST TENSE. Approximately 200 words DOES NOT contribute to word count.
3: Content List (do this last). Use nomenclature- and Check content for accuracy.
4 Introduction (brief – and again, do it AFTER the body of your work has been written so
that you are not promising something that is not delivered in your discussion: Introduce
the Report – don’t discuss the Report: Indicate
i the nature / purpose of the Report (One good paragraph should be sufficient). FOR YOUR
ASSIGNMENT This may include the name and position of the person interviewed, the name
of the organisation and what it does.
ii description of the project (brief). Explain what the project is about. What is it’s purpose?
What are you trying to achieve? (a good paragraph should be sufficient) FOR YOUR
ASSIGNMENT – this could include a brief indication of what the change intervention was
that the organisation experienced.
iii analysis of the change (Brief): A quick introductory line or two to lead your reader into
the BODY of the discussion – see below.
5
Body of the Work Each section should follow the same principle of …. “Your reader
knows nothing – explain”. This will ensure attention to detail. Make sure every claim or
observation you make is backed with evidence /quotes – from your interview / research. Avoid
generalisations (very damaging and suggest you don’t really know, or have failed to consider your
statements properly – loses marks quickly).
In responding to the five sections here, you should be applying theory and concepts that you have
come to understand:
5.1 Change Drivers & Change intervention
5.2 Change Perspectives
5.3 Interviewee’s underlying change assumptions
5.4 Planned or Emergent change
5.5 Effectiveness of the change intervention
6 Conclusion: Pulls together the main points discovered during your investigation. What have
you discovered? The five main sections of the body (5.1- 5.5), suggests there should be at least
5 findings that are worthy of inclusion in this section. (this can vary). Do not introduce any new
thoughts or ideas here. The Conclusion isn’t for discovery – it winds up your findings presented
in the body of your work.
3
7 Recommendations: Be careful here – you are not an industry expert.
•
•
•
You can only draw on the material that was discussed at interview and then developed
in your discussion.
Keep them realistic; support with interview evidence AND
Always support with course theory / concept to demonstrate your understanding and
make the recommendation a valid comment.
8 References (and appendices: interview transcript, etc.). You must follow the
Referencing style Chicago 17 B. Check your Library – clear and easy guide available. I do not
tolerate careless errors here. Take the time to get it right – or incur penalties.
***
Personal Communication: FOR YOUR ASSIGNMENT you are quoting an interview
transcription, so put in-text citations into brackets in the body of your work:
EXAMPLE ONLY:
In-text citation following a quote: (J. Snow, pers. communication August 3, 2020). It’s
tedious – but it’s accurate!
Reference List – FOR YOUR ASSIGNMENT We prefer to see you reference your interviewee
(with their position/role) at the TOP of your Reference list (eg: Snow, John. August 3, 2020.
Strategy Manager, Stark Enterprises. Personal Communication) – and then go into the
natural abc order for the rest of your References.
Further tips ….. Avoid these:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Your own opinions that lack evidence to support (only in recommendations – sparingly)
Any other unsupported or irrelevant data or conclusions.
Careless presentation and lack of proof-reading
Too much emphasis on appearance and not enough on content
Missing or lack of in-text citation or references to the source of ideas or material
Incorrect format of in-text citation and referencing
Please use your Rubrik to assist you throughout the Assignment AND your Unit Outline instructions.
1
1: ASSIGNMENT 1: Work Integrated Project Report. 35% (2500 words)
PURPOSE: Refers to Lectures 1-5. Provides you with an opportunity to apply relevant change
theory to an organisational change situation (intervention). You are required to analyse,
interpret and evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of a change process in an
organisation by using data gained via a CASE INTERVIEW provided to you. Your discussion is
presented in a Report format – and demonstrates your understanding of theory and
concepts covered to this point in your Course work. Provide evidence of applied critical and
analytical thinking.
A: Task: THE INTERVIEW:
a) You are required to identify the process of ‘change intervention’ as experienced by an
ordinary industry / organisation / business. The Case is presented by way of an
Interview which provides the data for the discussion that follows. The Interview uses
seven main questions to elicit the information required. As you read the Interview,
study the questions and responses closely and then respond to each of the 5
Sections outlined below in Part B.
b) Your response is to be presented by way of a formal Report. (Format provided).
B: Report [correct Format essential – see Assessments Tab for template and advice]
**WORD COUNT is only a suggestion to guide your argument weighting.
The following sections become the focus of your discussion…
Critically analyse the Interview and discuss using the FIVE sections below.
1: Introduction
Briefly describe the ‘change’ situation (what has happened?).
Determine why the change intervention was introduced – what forced / drove the
organisation to implement a programme of change?
(200 wds)
Body
2.1 Describe the subsequent ‘change intervention’ undertaken by management.
a. Clearly identify the forces for change and determine if they were internal or
external to the firm.
b. Further support your decision by stating if the nature of the change was planned
or emergent.
c. Summarise the actions of management as they responded to these forces for
change. What did the process of intervention include?
(600 wds)
2,2
Suggest at least two relevant and guiding change perspectives that management
used to analyse and direct the change implementation in the organisation. [Please
select from Perspectives 2-10]
(500 wds)
2.3
Provide evidence of ‘strategy at work’ as management implemented the process of
2
change intervention. Whose theory is in evidence here?
(300 wds)
2.4
Respond to the following using Interview data and theory to substantiate your
findings.
a. Describe the interviewee’s underlying assumptions about the proposed change before it took place. What were the main concerns re the challenges ahead?
(150 wds)
b. Describe the ‘people challenges’ that the leadership team had to manage.
(100 wds)
c. Did management achieve their intended outcomes? Were their strategies
correct? Why / why not?
(150 wds)
d. After the process how did the company feel about the changes. Management?
Employees?
(100 wds)
2.5
Conclusion:
(see tips in your Report format guide)
(200 wds)
3.
Recommendations – provide two – must be supported by theory or sound academic
concepts or comments): Suggest:
(200 wds)
i): one alternative change perspective that could have been considered to
assist management with their initial planning (include theory).
ii): What other management processes could be improved upon – use
Lewin’s four-part process of change implementation to justify your
comments.
In your discussion, support your views with evidence (‘quotes’) from your interview (data).
We expect that your responses to the issues indicated in points 1 to 5 above will be fully
supported by course theory and other peer-reviewed research commentary.
D: Formatting and Referencing requirements:
The length of your report should be 2500 words ± 10% (excluding the reference list), font
Arial; font size 11; all page margins 2.5 cm; line spacing: 1,5. Marks will be deducted if
students do not follow the word count guidelines.
Source requirements: You should use at least EIGHT (8) credible reference sources,
correctly cited and referenced. Reference Sources include:
a) “Academic/Scholarly” articles appearing in journals. See in this regard the list of
major academic journals available in the library. The majority of your sources should
be derived from such journals with a minimum of Five (5) journal articles or other
relevant academic texts. There is no maximum. In addition please note:
b) A single (one) internet source may be used in addition to the Five (5) academic
sources. (Electronic journals, accessed through the library, are considered as
relevant reference sources). A penalty will be incurred if more than one nonacademic internet source is used. Avoid internet sources that do not have the
author and the publisher’s names. Note also that Wikipedia is NOT allowed.
c) All sources should be cited and referenced in accordance with the Chicago version
17b referencing style.
3
E: Assignment 1 Marking Criteria: Please refer to Blackboard and use your RUBRIK to
guide your best responses.
• Assignment is to be submitted electronically to Turnitin.
• Graduate capabilities assessed: 1 – 6.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
